tv Washington Journal Newt Gingrich CSPAN October 22, 2017 1:03pm-1:49pm EDT
war and you are captured by the to haveou cannot expect tea. 50 years after his capture, john mccain talks about the impact of the vietnam war on his life and the country, today at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we welcome back newt gingrich, out with a new book. and your wife's book and her new posting. george w. bush is in new york this week and said politics seems to be more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication. your reaction? >> i think there are real differences between bush and
senator mccain. part of what the republican primary fight was about in 2015 and 2016 was which of those does did republican voters want. by a decisive margin they said they thought the past was not to their vantage and they wanted change. -- trump wasate not recruited by the establishment, he won in a hostile takeover. i can appreciate that the losing side is not happy. we have been talking about globalism versus america first. where would you put the president's foreign policy? guest: i think there is a tendency on the part of the people want to defend globalism to not be honest about what it is. globalism in its essence, so we can look at the john kerry, hillary clinton, barack obama version is the subordination of the united states to a series of
international agreements often dominated by countries that are not democracies. nk we should be in the general assembly of the united nations? yes. should we take it seriously? no. there is some reason to believe that they conflate ring involved with the international order, which donald trump is for, with globalism, which is the domination of the united states by multinational agreements where we give away our sovereignty to countries, many of which do not share our values, many of which are dictatorships. i don't think the current venezuela government is the moral equivalent of the united states government. host: is this a dramatic shift from post-world war ii engagement with have seen from the u.s.? guest: i don't think it is a dramatic shift from engagement. it is a dramatic shift in the solution.
when george h.w. bush called the new world order, there is no new world order. the chinese are trying to become at a minimum our competitor and a maximum dominators. you have chaos in a whole number of countries. whohave islamic radicals ambush americans and occupy cities. this is not a world order. the question becomes what is the best baseline in which to defend american values and interests. i think sovereignty is useful and healthy. warsaw,rump's speech in the united nations, these are serious speeches outlining a sovereignty based international commitment as opposed to a globalist lawyer diplomatic base, which is a failed model. host: senator robert taft of ohio, dwight eisenhower became the nominee and leader of your
party for eight years. the circumstances have changed them up but is it similar to the debate we saw in the 1950's? taft really did want to avoid engaging the soviet union. he wanted to revert to a pre-world war ii isolationism. trump is not an isolationist. he clearly understands there is a larger world. we are more engaged in korea. we are more engaged in syria. there are a range of places where he is trying to get congress to agree to rebuild the military. he wants to base his international activities on american sovereignty and american interests. i'm not sure i understand why people think having an american president believe their job is to worry about american interests, why is that a big shock? i understand why it is with the new york times. they live in a fantasy world. host: should the president
korea?d to the dmz in guest: i leave that entirely up to the president and the commander in south korea. was: is nato working as it intended? guest: it cannot be. there is no longer the soviet union. nato was intended to contain the soviet union. it worked. one morning the soviet union disappeared, and nato headquarters was faced with a crisis. what do we do now? they have held the alliance together for 26 years since the soviets disappeared. nato overall is useful. i will give you an example. i'm a phd in european history. i have lived in europe a number of times. when the chancellor of germany, who is a very smart woman, smart leader, when she says it is time for the europeans to leave.
i got hit with this when i was in kiev the other day. i say, the morning she increases defense spending, i will take it seriously. the germans don't have a military strong enough to lead anywhere. they would be lucky to get to the german order. the europeans have to decide who they want to be. they have lived on american security and american strength since 1945. we are saying to them, george h.w. bush said to them, donald rumsfeld said that you have to do more, you're not doing your fair share. germany is one of the largest economies on the planet. they should be able to defend themselves even if they are not able to defend the rest of europe. i'm happy to be there to reinforce everybody. the person who leads these negotiations, rex tillerson, is he doing so in a position of strength or weakness? guest: i think he is doing so
from a position of confusion. i think he is a very smart man and ran exxon mobil, which is a giant corporation, with great capabilities. ultimately, the secretary of state is a staff job. you are not the head of the corporation anymore. i think he has a very different job. my sense overall is that there is agreement between secretary tillerson, secretary of defense mattis, mcmaster, and john kelly, the agreement is very high. they try to present the president with serious options, most of which i think he engages with successfully. their track record after all the noise and arguments is that they are probably achieving the strategies they believe in. host: our conversation with former house speaker newt gingrich, when was the first time you were on this network?
do you remember? guest: i think you were a child at the time. host: march of 1979. i have not been born. guest: is that true? host: no. guest: i was going to say. ofas sworn in in january 1979. you guys showed up in march. you have to check the archives out of purdue, my guess is i was on c-span by june or july. host: let's remind our audience, we will get you post in just a moment. out with the new book, "who knew, a fiction thriller." what is this about? guest: it is about terrorists getting to tankers of oil and making dirty bombs in joining saudi arabia and israel to find
the terrorists before they can set off the bonds that make the city uninhabitable. i think it is a dynamic story. i think it is very real in the sense that i think it helps shape national defense thinking in two ways. you have to have an all capabilities analysis of your enemy. you can't save the north koreans they're just going to build missiles. what else can they do? you cannot think of a binary korea,ith u.s.-north u.s.-iran, you have to think of a networked world. yourself, what is the enemy network doing, not just what is one single country doing? host: how much is fiction and how much is nonfiction? guest: the action is fiction, but the underlying principles are nonfiction.
anyone who reads it will understand how much we have to be prepared to stop bad people from doing horrifying things. host: your wife spoke, remember the ladies. which ellisis in the elephant teaches four-year-olds to eight-year-olds about the first lady. forhich they don't, not another 100 years. it is a great book. ellis is a terrific character. little kids like the book. susan arturo does the drawings. they leave off the pages. it is sort of frustrated because now that she has been nominated and confirmed as the ambassador, she cannot go on tv and talk about it because she is now a government employee. host: you just did.
guest: i'm trying to carry the family torch. host: a quick question because we sat down with hillary clinton lastly, and in her book she quotes the john adams letter to his wife, make good and honest men live in this way has come and she says she would not what donald trump in that category. guest: of course she went, he beat her. she lost toid if mccain or romney, she would have been ok with it. guest: donald trump is a much bigger break with the old order. donald trump was a decision by the american people, first in the primaries, and that in the general election, that they wanted a dramatically different election. they are getting it in judges. they are getting it in deregulation. they're getting it in policy recommendations. reagan would have been seen the same way in 1981.
in 1981, he was a very disruptive figure and an enormous shock to the republican and democratic establishments. host: peter, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. speaker. i am an avid watcher. what i want to speak about is the molar investigation. just ahearing from volatile, greg jarrett, no one seems to understand why attorney general jeff sessions doesn't appoint a special counsel to investigate uranium, fast and myious, the irs scandal, and analysis, and i watch a lot of news, is i think president trump -- those guys keep saying, "are
attorney -- he can order attorney general jeff sessions anytime he wants. i think president trump doesn't want to do it, why? because he is afraid. this special mueller wash mr. appointed to hold a sort of damocles above his head. this can go on for years. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: i was very encouraged last week when sen. grassley: chairman of the judiciary committee, indicated he was opening an investigation into the entire deal with uranium with the russians and the potential that the russians in bribing thesically clinton foundation in order to affect the secretary of state. i am tweeting out today a copy of an article which really
outlines in a compelling way the whole story of uranium and the russians and the scale of bribery involved at the clinton foundation. i think people will find it interesting. host: the will go to robert in arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. running,president was he had a policy that he was going to be hard on communist china. i understood he was going to do a 45% tariff. then it got down to a 35% tariff. most assuredly he was going to call them a currency manipulator. in reality, he did none of that. a few years ago, i was going to hang my flag. the hardware was made by coke industries in communist china, the rope made by communist china in vietnam. koch industries also owns
georgia-pacific. the first thing the president of the united states does is put a 20% tariff on canada. now when we got a time when we got these hurricanes, fires in california, lumber has gone berserk. our lumber is still coming from canada. tell me, why is it i cannot get any of my congressman to say anything boldly against the president for this tariff on canada, and yet he has refused to put it on communist china? i think tillerson is doing a job for the present -- an excellent job for the president. i think the. guest: administration is getting steadily tougher with the chinese. i think the process is slow down by north korea. i think the administration leaves that the only potential
short of war is the chinese, so they are conflicted between the desire to break the north korean nuclear program and the fact that they are increasingly angry about chinese economic activity. i think they were waiting until after the party congress that just finished because i think they thought it was much more volatile to take on china during that period leading up to the party congress. i will be surprised if they are not very tough with the chinese. i know from internal conversations they fully understand how much the chinese sheet, and i think you will see the administration taking stronger efforts. in terms of the canadian thing, we have had an ongoing since the 1920's argument about timber. the current outcome was a specific action taken as part of a very long, historic pattern. it may well be suspended as you point out as you have this
skyrocketing timber cost in the united states because of the hurricanes and fires in california and need to build so much, including in puerto rico. host: listening on c-span radio or series xm, this program is carried live every sunday. former house speaker newt gingrich out with his newest boo k he has written. 35. we have heard from paul ryan that there could be a fourth line in this tax reform plan, which by all estimates would great $2 trillion in economic growth over the next decade but also explode the deficit. guest: the number one goal has to be accelerated the economy. the economy -- this is the weakest economy since the great depression. it has been since trump was elected up until obama.
at 1.8% or we were 1.9%. the difference doesn't sound much, but when you have an economy like ours, a one over 10 yearsnt is trillions of dollars. that is more americans have jobs, and it also means states that have a pension crisis have more revenue to deal with their pensions. there are a lot of different things -- this is why i was so much for writing. i think economic growth -- reagan. i think economic growth is key. you cannot take care of the social services you need. if you are not growing economically. i would rather risk the deficit and have massive economic growth economye a very weak and smaller deficit. host: when do the alarm bells
ring? guest: i am the only speaker in the house to balance the budget in four years. if you grow the economy enough, you will get to a balanced budget. whether or not they do it in the next year or two, and they frankly need to win the election in 2018 to have the kind of reforms you need. kenny is next, florida. guest: -- caller: good morning. i want to ask you about the death tax and why that money is and ifhen you earned it, you save it, it is taxed, and if you die, it is taxed again. liberals say it is only going to affect millionaires and multimillionaires. that is not necessarily true. if you could explain that to our liberal friends, i would appreciate it. thanks. have a good day. guest: the death tax is a good
example of where we need the kind of debate where the country can sort out what really believes. the truth is people most current by the death tax are farming families and small business owners because often they have to sell the farm or small business in order to pay the tax when the founding member dies or the father or grandfather dies, which is usually the case. it can also be the founding mother. there are two different items. the moral argument, you earn the money and pay taxes on the money, and you build net worth on after-tax income, why should the government re-tax you on something you have already paid taxes on? the second argument is practical. if we could eliminate all the extra games that are played with lawyers and accountants to get around the death tax and allow
people to do things rationally that create money and create jobs and lead to growth, you would probably get a substantial increase in economic growth by eliminating the death tax. you see these really rich guys say they don't mind the death tax. they all have billion-dollar foundations. they don't mind the death tax because they are not going to pay it. you talk about the guys who are most willing to say it is fine, all of them have billion-dollar foundations to avoid the tax. host: you have a new title, president to the u.s. investor to the holy see. guest: she was very honored to be nominated, and the senate last week confirmed her as investor to the holy see. as a devout catholic, i think being able to communicate between the pope and the president is something she finds
as one of the greatest honors of her life. i took a four day course. host: spouse school. guest: i learned a lot of things. it was very interesting. she took a four-week course on being the investor. host: one thing you learned? guest: they had an hour and a half on doing interviews. everyone thought they knew had to do interviews, but not as the spouse of the investor. i can say anything as newt gingrich, but if i come here as the investors has been, i have to be -- ambassador's husband, i have to be careful. i cannot be seen as speaking for her because i might be making policy that is not the president's policy. it is helpful to be reminded that i have these two radically different roles. as the spouse, i am there to be her helper. as an individual commentator, i
can say anything i want. francise influence pope has had on the church and the dialogue in the world. guest: i think he has had a huge impact. he has an amazing number of twitter followers. he and trump can compare notes on that. i think he has broadened the appeal of the church. he is very aware of the poor around the planet. he is a serious moral leader. he shakes up america some. he is from argentina. doesn'tian capitalism equal american capitalism. interesting, when he reallyre, i think he was amazed at how generous and committed americans are to the church and how different our
model of free enterprise is from the argentinian model. host: president trump has been critical of the pope, especially on issues like climate change. guest: they have a very different view of climate change. i think the pope was very critical of trump first. the pope doesn't hold back. trump doesn't hold back. i'm told, the president thought they had a very good meeting. it lasted about an hour. the president thought it was a very positive, very productive meeting. everything she has heard from the church hierarchy, they are excited she is coming, and they look forward to having a positive relationship with her. host: you are moving next month? guest: we are looking to move in early november. host: democrats line. caller: mr. gingrich --
caller: -- guest: yes, ma'am. caller: i would like you to expand to me and the american people about nafta. wasn't ronald reagan and george nafta/sh that drafted ? you the speaker of the house got after bill clinton about that nafta deal. guest: that is a great question. ronald reagan first proposed in north american trade agreement in 1979 when he was announcing for president. it was negotiated for years. we had a u.s.-canada free-trade toeement in 1988, which led prime minister maroni winning the argument that they should have free trade with the u.s. we finally got the agreement signed in the very late days of the bush presidency, and in a
key moment, jimmy carter went to north carolina and met with then candidate bill clinton that he should before and after, that the long-term future -- be for nafta. as republican whip at the time, i helped pas it. at balance, it was a positive step. it has done a great guilt to stabilize mexico. if you think of the north american region, canada, the united states, and mexico competing with china, i think it has helped us keep jobs in north america. i think it can be renegotiated. i think it will be renegotiated. i think there are things, particularly in the auto industry where trade has been one-sided towards mexico, i think you'll see significant concessions. i think on balance it was a good
thing to do at the time. it is now over 20 years old. it is reasonable to renegotiate it and modify it. i would hope they could get is as counsel -- a successful negotiation because i think it would lead to a substantial problem if we were to break it off and leave mexico isolated. frankly, the mexicans would turn almost immediately to the chinese. host: independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. you will hear the republican amy. -- in me. after the republican debates, i went independent. i read a couple of your books. the one that impressed me the most was the one about the judges. the president now has a full congress of republicans. i don't understand how come he is not filling the seats below the lower seats of the judges that are open right now.
me issue for republicans and as a social conservative, you are not going to get rid of roe, but you can sure attack partial-birth abortions. legislation from the bench, gay marriage, all these things that have an impact on conservatives, but he is not filling those seats. host: i'm going to cut you off there because we are short on time. guest: mitch mcconnell deserves more credit than he gets a senate leader, they have now approved twice as many judges as barack obama got at the same point in his first year. they have a close relationship with the federal society. they are producing a generation of conservative judges. on average, they are eight or nine years younger than the judges obama was appointing. donald trump has a chance to
reshape the judiciary for the next 40 years. i think you will see a continued stream of nominations, and i think the senate is going to get a lot of judges confir med. host: the president is tweeting. i want to get your comment. this is from donald trump, it reads, "whacky congresswoman wilson is the gift that keeps on giving the republican party, a disaster for dems, vote republican." this is getting personal. guest: of course it is personal. if you decide to go on television and take on a retired four-star marine general, who is ily, youa gold star fam understand. host: he made a claim that was not true. guest: yes.
he has since regretted that. the president called to express condolences on the loss of a loved one. general kelly was in the room for the call and is somebody who has had to deal with a lot of people in his command dying. he thought what the president said was totally appropriate. most of the combat people i forgot think it was totally appropriate. the congresswoman listened in on the call and gave her interpretation. now you have a mess. i think it is a -- i thought the other day that general kelly was extraordinarily articulate and powerful in saying, you know, there were things that used to be sacred in america, things we used to honor, things that used to bring us together. the idea that you would end up in a political fight over a
phone call about an american who gave their life for the country, as kelly himself second it shook him so badly he spent an hour to have walking around arlington. know, democrats are now saying this is going to be donald trump's benghazi. for me to seeard how this ends up being donald trump's benghazi. benghazi was a case where the ambassador had asked secretary clinton for security, and the state department turned the ambassador down for five or six months, and the ambassador was killed. what this is is an ambush pulled off against it control that -- a patrol. that is going to happen. we have to be honest about this. we are in a war with people across the planet who want to kill us. occasionally there are going to
be bad things that happened whether it is in afghanistan or iraq or the philippines. when you look at the number of places we are fighting, it is going to go on for a long time, maybe three or four generations. it is not going to end anytime soon. the question is, should we have more forces there? i am for strengthening the american military. that requires a bigger budget. it requires the congress do its job. it requires that the office of management and budget understands this is a war budg et. host: i know you have a busy morning. we will take two more calls. keith, minnesota, democrat line. good morning. caller: the question i have is election,this last when trump got in there, the w orking class didn't get a pay
increase that are retired, and who am onlly, disability, did get an increase. i don't think it's fair for the middle class and the poor people who have to suffer. guest: i agree with you. i hope you will call your senators and house members to vote for the tax cut. it will be a $4000 increase in take-home pay for every middle-class family. it takes a huge number of people off taxes entirely. passur point, if we can the tax cut this fall, every middle-class family in america is going to get a substantial increase in take-home pay. i think your point is well made. host: let me ask about your
relationship with the congressional leadership and the present. guest: i thought paul ryan was brilliant the other night. host: we carried it. it is on our network. guest: if you do not see it, it is worth watching. it is as good as i can member, speaking at the else met dinner -- all smith dinner. the relationship is gradually getting better. trump attacks people. you have to deal with it. get over it. that is good advice. senator mcconnell went down, and they had lunch. they had an almost hour-long conference, which i am sure mitch thought was one of the wilder experiences of his career. he wrote a great book, a
terrific memoir about his life in the senate and his values. donald trump is unique. we have never had somebody who has never held public office, never won an election, shows up as president of the united states, and he has his strengths and weaknesses. you get a personality that strong, and you will have some things that are quirky that are downsides, things i wish you would not do. host: which are? 10% to 15% oft his tweets, 20% maybe our self-destructive. he is relentless. was talking to claire christiansen who works with us, and it hit me that we have not give him enough credit yet.
trump has this remarkable ability of being comfortable with being drunk. he -- trump. he knows he has strengths and weaknesses. he gets up every morning and runs at full speed. he is unashamedly donald trump. that means sometimes he does things -- the whole exchange with corker make no sense to me. senator corker is remarkably important, very smart senator, who he needs for the tax cut and foreign policy. it is a piece of the larger complexity of trump. i think paul ryan have it exactly right. you are not going to deal with the guy you wish was president. you're not going to even do with the trump you wish was present, you are dealing with the trump that is. let's go to lunch and work out
something. host: the book is called pensions, the latest -- venge ance, the latest book by newt gingrich. guest: i'm thinking about how many revolutions are underway simultaneously, whether it is black lives matter, or the revolution in technology and biology. i am trying to understand if i can do a book that tries to explain where we are, with the skill of choices in 2018 the on just normal politics. it is a different world. host: author, fox news contributor, former house speaker, and now the husband to the
>> coming up monday, an associated press reporter discusses the week ahead in washington. a columnist talks about the mortgage interest reduction. be sure to watch "washington journal" monday mornings. join the discussion. while the pentagon continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding the attack in niger, senate armed services chair john mccain is looking for answers. with jamesou at mattis behind closed doors to talk about that deadly ambush. the two then faced reporters.
>> we discussed various issues and it always a pleasure to work with him. >> you've been saying that the administration was holding out. felt we were not getting a sufficient amount of information and we are clearing a lot of that up now. >> yesterday said the pentagon was not providing as much information as was required [inaudible] we can always improve on communication. that is exactly what we will do.
>> the relationship the secretary and i have goes back 20 years. it is one of appreciation and honoring his service. to try to improve our lines of communication and our regular meetings will be helpful in that area. what would you like to see going forward? we are discussing that and we are committed to improving. [inaudible] >> it depends on whether we get the witnesses or not. >> who would you want as a witness? cyber --ad of the there was a place for him in the hearing yesterday.
if the centaur the house calls they always show up. it is my policy and i've the technology to make that happen. [inaudible] >> i do not discuss those kinds of things, thank you. >> let me close by saying the secretary and i have had a 20 year relationship, we have had our problems and issues and i'm proud to work with him and the work he is doing. we will continue these regular meetings so we can work together in these difficult and challenging times. i am proud to know him. thank you very much. thank you very much. , would youy mattis say it is a matter of hours or days or months until we get a full accounting? senator carolina
lindsey graham also sits on the senate armed services committee. " he sharede press his thoughts on the attack in niger and the ongoing investigation. >> i got insight into why they were there and what they were doing. they were there to defend america, they were there to help allies. senator mccain is frustrated. we do not know where we are at in the world militarily and what we are doing. john mccain is going to try to create a system to make sure we can answer the question why we were there, we will know how many soldiers were there and if somebody gets killed we will not find out about it in the paper. john mccain and general mattis will come up with a new process, i hope. aworry africa will become
place for terrorists to, after you defeat them in syria and iraq and afghanistan and there are groups within this system of terrorist groups in africa that would attack our allies. it is a generational struggle. if you do not think it is a generational struggle, you do not understand the war. the theology is spreading throughout the world, particularly africa. if you think it is going to be done in a short period of time, if you think of the means of how you fight this war, there's an anhor race and -- there is authorization to use force tomorrow i would vote against it. we are going to follow the terrorists wherever they go, we are going to use whatever means we need with partners to destroy them. whatever time it takes, it takes. huddleston --he
the hudson institute takes a look at countering violent extremism. we hear from people like former cia directors leon panetta and david petraeus as well as former white house strategist steve bannon. more live coverage with press secretary sarah sanders, she will join correspondence of fox news and the new york times to talk about the trump administration and its relationship with the media. that is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. you can also listen on the free c-span radio app. >> monday, on "the communicators." russia's involvement in the election. facebook has said that they learned a bunch of ads placed during the election were placed
by a russian outfit under anonymous accounts and they were politically divisive ads, not necessarily aimed at one candidate or another but aimed at sewing divisiveness on charged topics. communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. next, melania trump donates her inaugural gown to the smithsonian natural museum of american history where it will be on display in the first ladies exhibit. this presentation is about 15 minutes. >> please welcome mr. john gray, director of the smithsonian natural museum of american history -- smithsonian national museum of american history.